Seafire Vs SpitV (2011)

[dtango]

Moot- I have no issues with the approach to using particular configured weight for performance comparisons.  We aren’t evaluating the FM against the laws of physics which is a different animal.

Saying the FM is wrong implies it violates some law of physics.  A physics law usually consists of a full spectrum of outcomes dependant on how the governing variables change.  To reliably judge against the physics law means judging the law in its entirety and not just a portion to verify violations.

In our case we were judging against the law, RoC = (thrust-drag)*velocity/weight.  Specifically we were evaluating RoC as it should compare between two airplanes.  We can express the full spectrum of outcomes of the law this way:

Outcome A: RoC_Seafire < RoC_SpitV
Outcome B: RoC_Seafire = RoC_SpitV
Outcome C: RoC_Seafire > RoC_SpitV

Here we only judged the FM against Outcome A because of limiting assumptions made about weight.   We didn’t reliably test against the law since we didn’t validate against its entirety.   To prove that the RoC law was violated we have to also check the FM against the other outcomes which meant not limiting the assumptions about weight.

[moot]

I must've said something I didn't know meant something else.. I wasn't saying the FM is wrong, only that the charts don't reflect on the probability distribution of spit5/seafire weights encountered in the game.

I understand that the charts show that at equal weights the spitV and seafire have the same RoC..  But why choose to show them as equal weights when they're not?  Or are they?

[dtango]

Sorry moot- my fault, I didn't mean to imply you said anything about the FM being wrong at all (quite the contrary).  My Fail for not being clear!  Let me try again.

1) For purposes of basic airplane comparisons I have no problem with your approach using the weights AH allows you to configure (e.g. 25,50,75,100%) to do the comparisons with.  Personally you would need to do more to convince me that the spit5/seafire chart based on one of these loadouts is anymore probable than any other weight but this is a minor point.  I'd be perfectly fine if they re-did all the AH charts using a consistent configured loadout like this.

2) However if we are to judge a flight model, to assume the AH chart is based on some AH configured weight since that configuration is more probable misses the point of what it means to judge the FM against some law of physics.  Please let me know if I need to re-clarify my reasons why I think this.

3) Why did HTC use equal weights for the spit5/seafire (& 190A-8/F-8) chart?  Only they know but I strongly think it was to check the FM .  Previously I said there are 3 possible valid outcomes of the "ROC law".

Outcome A: ROC_Seafire < ROC_SpitV
Outcome B: ROC_Seafire = ROC_SpitV
Outcome C: ROC_Seafire > ROC_SpitV

If HTC is treating them as essentially the same plane with differences only in weight then their performance should be essentially the same when their weights are equal.  They are testing their FM against one of the valid outcomes of the "ROC law" to check if their FM violates the physics for when the law requires ROC_Seafire=ROC_SpitV (when spit5/seafire are equal weights).  If the performance is different when the weights are the same then something is wrong.  Equaling the weights is just a really easy way to do this for this case.

The laws of physics don't care an iota about probabilities of when a plane might weigh such-in-such.  It doesn't matter.  It'll render a judgement for the entirety of valid outcomes within the envelope of that law.

[moot]

Alright maybe #1 or #2 is where you lose me.  The average player that looks at these charts isn't in a "test the FM" perspective, he's only looking to know [what the airplane he clicks on will fly like]*.  I understand everything else you've explained, but shouldn't this* be the rationale in the plane configurations that these charts represent?

[dtango]

The average player that looks at these charts isn't in a "test the FM" perspective, he's only looking to know [what the airplane he clicks on will fly like]*....shouldn't this* be the rationale in the plane configurations that these charts represent?

It depends if HTC intends other purposes for the charts, but yes I'd agree to this rationale.  I think you're going somewhere with this.  Please continue .

[moot]

.. Sorry to disappoint, that's all I got    I'm all ears if you know the next step.

[dtango]

.. Sorry to disappoint, that's all I got    I'm all ears if you know the next step.

nevermind. 

[Masherbrum]

     Nice posts Wango Tango!!!   

Good info from you as well bud.

[dtango]

Wango Tango!!!   

   woooooo!

I'm just a goofy goober doing my best to imitate "The Nuge" to free minds with aero rock & roll, man....

...sort of like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xfC7TcXm8E

...the parallels are astonishing!!

[Krusty]

I think everybody might agree that the info on a chart is useless if the datapoints are irrelevant.

You could compare a B-25 with a Fw190, and depending how HEAVY they were the B-25 could outclimb the 190. Technically it's grounded in a physics engine, and may be true, but only for when based in nonsensical loadouts. If you looked up a chart that showed the Fw190A8 doing 1800 fpm and the B-25C doing 3500 fpm you would cry foul instantly. It's nowhere near representative of actual performance.

It's not a physics test. It's a top level speed and max climb rate chart. If the 190A8 is many hundreds of pounds lighter than the F8 and both planes have the exact same engines, drag, lift related to their airframes being identical, under no realistic situation should the charts show cookie-cutter identical lines.

You're debating the physics of it. As soon as we accepted that HTCs charts are WRONG, it's not about that any more. It's now about why don't they show actual useful information? That's the issue. It's not one of debating the science behind WHEN they are the same... It's one of reasonable expectations when you look at a max speed and max climb chart. You reasonably expect it to be relative to other craft and reasonably expect it to be indicative of perfomance versus other craft.

[FLS]

It's quite a stretch to say the charts are useless because they don't use your preferred configuration. Since you won't know the weight of the bandit what does it matter what weight the chart uses?  You won't know the exact difference in climb rate in any case but you'll still have the same general idea of relative climb performance.

[Krusty]

It's also quite a stretch to say they reflect any useful info at all when all planes no matter how similar have no baseline configuration. Why not compare a spit16 carring rockets and bombs to a P-38 clean with 10% gas onboard?

The answer is obvious. It is self evident. You don't do such a thing because it makes no sense and serves no helpful purpose.

Hence why showing random loadouts to match theoretical weights that don't occur with in-game options is "useless" and inaccurate, as has been established.

[moot]

Krusty you've got a valid point.  Why the hyperbole?

[Krusty]

Fair enough. He didn't seem to be getting why it's an issue. Pulled a worst-case-example outta my rear to show him why.

[FLS]

Krusty accurate information is always useful when you don't misinterpret it. All you've established is that you'd like to see the charts based on the same configuration. Maybe you should post a wish.